My new old Hors Cat/another Dumb Triple Question.

[beungood]

I finally got around to finishing my Hors Cat and took it for a shakedown ride in Concorde Friday night. I switched drive train and cobbled together a Chorus triple to aid in rehabbing my injuiresd from an accident last year. I've read here of riders raving about thier Hors Cats and after my first ride I have to say OMG! What a smooth riding bike. On the downhills that thing rails!

I was a little hesitant about the triple at first ,but, with my back and leg still not a 100% and generally wanting to save a few bucks I dug into my pile of parts and used a Chorus Triple and an American Classic 12/25. I took some advice from Ti and concentrated on spinning and thought the 42 might be helpful.

I couldn't be more pleased with it. One thing that kind of threw me for a loop was that on this loop there is oneclimb that gives me fits even with my 39. I went through there and hauled up most of it in the 42 and it seemed alot easier for some reason. Im wondeirng if maybe I carry more speed and momentum versus grinding out on it.. Over all I seemed to fly through my loop much easier and faster than usualy. Maybe it is the sum of all parts ,drivetrain, Good frame and good fit?..

[Tobias]

What is the triple question? :confused:

[Ken Robb]

I think after you layoff you are not over-trained. :) Another guess: the HC may be a better fit for you.

[slowandsteady]

Pics Please! Don't torture us like that...

[dekindy]

IMHO it takes either a keen ability to estimate incline % and length of climbs or have much experience with a course to select whether to sit or stand on a climb and the best gear. That is why the pros spend so much time previewing the climbing stages.

I have purchased an inclinometer so I can learn to better estimate slope and determine if I need to sit or stand and select the best gear. With my fitness that is important because I currently don't have much room for error. I believe that learning to do this better will greatly improve my climbing without improving fitness because I am so bad at this due to lack of climbing experience.

BTW, good luck with your recovery. It appears that you have the right equipment for the job.

[William]

Baaah, on a triple you should be running a 53/52/48. Any thing else and you should.....you should be wearing Gold Rapha shorts. ;)





William

[RPS]

Funny the timing of this thread in that I’ve been testing myself over the last week to convince myself that I won’t miss the 42T middle ring if I upgrade to a newer Shimano triple (only available with 39T middle rings). I really like triples but have dreaded the idea of giving up my 42T for a 39T. Surprisingly all indications point towards a 39T middle ring being just fine – I probably won’t miss the 42T as much as I’ve feared.

[Ken Robb]

with 27-30 or 33 gears to choose we can probably always find a suitable ration. I think when designing 9 speed stuff Shimano aimed the DA gruppo at racers accustomed to 53-39 doubles but felt they needed a "granny" option so a 30 small ring was added. They would have all their usual gears and wouldn't have to make any adaptation when in the big and middle ring.

The Ultegra 52-42-30 was aimed at recreational rides many of whom would spend most of their time in the middle ring, using the big as an "overdrive" and the granny to get up those durn hills. My Rambo has 9 speed Ultegra and I'll bet I'm in the middle ring 80% of the time. A 42 ring and 16 or 17 cog gives me a perfect chainline and it's about my sweetspot for normal riding.

[Mike748]

I always thought triples were silly... until I bought my Ottrott and it came with one. I found I really like the 42 for most of my solo riding (I seem to use the big ring with groups). This weekend in New Mexico I found I really liked the 30 for 1000+ ft climbs. I also learned the wider Q of the Campy triple suits me much much much better than a double and eliminates a lot of knee issues, so I changed my Fierte and CSi (perish the thought) over to Chorus triples to match. You may laugh at me but I'm old enough not to care. I'm happy, my knees are happy. Life is good.

[Ti Designs]

What is the triple question? :confused:


Let's see - 1) why is this night different from all other nights - no, that's not it...


So let's see if I have this right - you're turning a larger gear, feeling more comfortable, spinning better and having an easier time on the hills... Yup, sounds about right to me!

[Dekonick]

with 27-30 or 33 gears to choose we can probably always find a suitable ration. I think when designing 9 speed stuff Shimano aimed the DA gruppo at racers accustomed to 53-39 doubles but felt they needed a "granny" option so a 30 small ring was added. They would have all their usual gears and wouldn't have to make any adaptation when in the big and middle ring.

The Ultegra 52-42-30 was aimed at recreational rides many of whom would spend most of their time in the middle ring, using the big as an "overdrive" and the granny to get up those durn hills. My Rambo has 9 speed Ultegra and I'll bet I'm in the middle ring 80% of the time. A 42 ring and 16 or 17 cog gives me a perfect chainline and it's about my sweetspot for normal riding.

A 42x17 is what I have on my fixed gear most of the time. It is a nice ratio for me.

[BCS]

What about a compact double with a 13-29?

34x29 is a smaller gear than 30x25. Campy says you need the medium cage rear derailer for this setup but YMMV.

[RPS]

with 27-30 or 33 gears to choose we can probably always find a suitable ration. I think when designing 9 speed stuff Shimano aimed the DA gruppo at racers accustomed to 53-39 doubles but felt they needed a "granny" option so a 30 small ring was added. They would have all their usual gears and wouldn't have to make any adaptation when in the big and middle ring.

The Ultegra 52-42-30 was aimed at recreational rides many of whom would spend most of their time in the middle ring, using the big as an "overdrive" and the granny to get up those durn hills. My Rambo has 9 speed Ultegra and I'll bet I'm in the middle ring 80% of the time. A 42 ring and 16 or 17 cog gives me a perfect chainline and it's about my sweetspot for normal riding.
I’m not sure I follow that logic completely because as I recall the 53/42 was historically more of a racing set than the 53/39.

When Shimano came out with the Dura-Ace triple they developed the 53/39/30 by grafting the 30T onto a 39T chainring. And if we do the numbers like most engineers would, the 53/39/30 has equal jumps, so it makes sense in a more theoretical respect (and we all know Japanese engineers are quite capable). However, during that same time frame Campy had both 42T and 40T middle rings (if I recall correctly) which makes more practical sense (to me anyway) because if a rider has a bailout ring “just-in-case” he needs it, then why not use a proportionally larger middle ring that can be used more effectively (I know this is mostly personal preference).

Additionally, with cassettes starting with 11T cogs becoming more popular, a 39T now gives almost the same useful high-end cruising ratios as the previous 42T for the same cog position compared to a cassette that starts with a 12T.

[RPS]

Let's see - 1) why is this night different from all other nights - no, that's not it...


So let's see if I have this right - you're turning a larger gear, feeling more comfortable, spinning better and having an easier time on the hills... Yup, sounds about right to me!
Did you forget the sarcasm “ :rolleyes: “ sign, or do you have inside information not covered in the OP?

[Ken Robb]

[QUOTE=RPS]I’m not sure I follow that logic completely because as I recall the 53/42 was historically more of a racing set than the 53/39.


Logic-schmogic--I think it's marketing--once racers settled on 53-39 cranks the easy way to sell them triples was to point out that with a 53-39-30 they would have all of the same combinations to which they were accustomed plus a bail-out gear.

[Ti Designs]

I’m not sure I follow that logic completely because as I recall the 53/42 was historically more of a racing set than the 53/39.

When Shimano came out with the Dura-Ace triple they developed the 53/39/30 by grafting the 30T onto a 39T chainring. And if we do the numbers like most engineers would, the 53/39/30 has equal jumps, so it makes sense in a more theoretical respect (and we all know Japanese engineers are quite capable). However, during that same time frame Campy had both 42T and 40T middle rings (if I recall correctly) which makes more practical sense (to me anyway) because if a rider has a bailout ring “just-in-case” he needs it, then why not use a proportionally larger middle ring that can be used more effectively (I know this is mostly personal preference).

Additionally, with cassettes starting with 11T cogs becoming more popular, a 39T now gives almost the same useful high-end cruising ratios as the previous 42T for the same cog position compared to a cassette that starts with a 12T.


Too much math, not enough riding...


The big objection to clipless pedals by new riders is that nagging concern - what if I have to get off the bike quickly. It seems logical, just like doing the math on gearing. But what happens on the bike is different than these oversimplified models.

My point in ever gearing discussion (dare I call it an argument?) is that the guys who learn how to pedal the bike aren't as concerned about what the gearing is, and the guys who spend lots of time calculating gear inches probably need to spend more time riding. At very least, here we have a case where a rider found it easier to pedal a 42 over a hill than the 39 - the math just doesn't explain that.

[pbjbike]

...

[Ti Designs]

It's a bigger "pulley" on the power end, so if gear inches are equal, there's more leverage, right?.


Wrong.

[pbjbike]

...

[Dave]

OK, show me the math ;). Equal gear inches do not mean equal torque at the point of power delivery, (from different gear combinations with the same roll-out). If you factor in the radii of different chainrings, and crank length, it's not a basic math equation. Someone with a mechanical engineering background can explain this.

I got my BSME in 1981 when I was 28 (started college at age 23 and took 5 years but I paid my own way). I've been riding for the last 25 years.

You're wrong about the gear ratio explanation. Except for a minute amount of additional friction attributed to (much) smaller chainrings, a 52/13, 48/12 or 44/11 are the same 4/1 ratio and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference when riding them. At a given cadence, they all produce the same speed.

Of course you can't always get the exact same ratio with a 42T and a 39T chainring. A 42/21 is 2/1. You can't get an exact 2/1 with a 39T ring. A 39/19 is 2.05/1 or 2.6% taller.

What does change is the chain tension. Chain tension is inversely proportional to the size of the chainring, so chain tension is higher with smaller chainrings. I expect that the additional tension is harder on the chain, but it would take some sophisticated testing to prove this.

Crank length is another topic.

[pbjbike]

...

[RPS]

[QUOTE=RPS]I’m not sure I follow that logic completely because as I recall the 53/42 was historically more of a racing set than the 53/39.


Logic-schmogic--I think it's marketing--once racers settled on 53-39 cranks the easy way to sell them triples was to point out that with a 53-39-30 they would have all of the same combinations to which they were accustomed plus a bail-out gear.
I respectfully disagree.

In my 2004 Shimano catalog practically all road groups were offered with 53/42 chainrings. By the 2008 catalog, only the DuraAce offered 53/42 rings and all others had to settle for 53/39 or smaller.

The bigger 42T chainring has been considered more of a racing ring than a 39T. That you stick one in the middle of a triple doesn’t sway that argument for me in the opposite direction.


BTW: According to the Shimano Web page, a 42T small ring is currently only available in DA. Seems less recreational to me.

[Ken Robb]

Marketing plans and advertising change so they can keep moving the goods. I was telling you how Shimano explained the DA/Ultegra difference in their 2000 catalogue.

[RPS]

OK, show me the math ;). Equal gear inches do not mean equal torque at the point of power delivery, (from different gear combinations with the same roll-out). If you factor in the radii of different chainrings, and crank length, it's not a basic math equation. Someone with a mechanical engineering background can explain this.
I’m a mechanical engineer and won’t show you the math, but will ask you to read between the lines. If you go back to the original post, there is no mention of what cassette he was previously using with the 39T. Additionally, he states that he “hauled up most of it in the 42 and it seemed a lot easier for some reason”. But unless you think he did the rest in the big ring, it follows that he used the 30T granny ring or whatever he used on the triple, right? So how much can we actually determine beyond pure speculation? If it was that much easier why did he not make the entire climb on the 42T? :confused: Maybe he was using a triple before with a 39T middle ring. Who knows -- I have no idea.

Without data – lots more data – there is very little to apply engineering to. We can discuss engineering principles as Dave did, but beyond that it’s pointless to compare at this time.

[Ti Designs]

[QUOTE=Ken Robb]In my 2004 Shimano catalog practically all road groups were offered with 53/42 chainrings. By the 2008 catalog, only the DuraAce offered 53/42 rings and all others had to settle for 53/39 or smaller.

Yep! Bikes keep getting better (or more expensive), riders keep getting slower. It's funny that the marketing emphasis is on racers, yet they make it so clear that their target market is anything but.

Di2 is turning into a market failure to this point because the testing is all being done by racers - everyone knows they ride the hardest and put the most demands on their bikes (this everyone person isn't always right...). But few racers are willing to shell out that kind of money for a shifting system. So you have the sponsored riders with Di2, you have lots of racers who would like it, but it's out of their price range, and you have lots of people with plenty of cash, but they all want triples and wider range gearing.

I still haven't figured out what's wrong with cable operated shifting systems, or what's so wrong with the 44T inner chainring - what am I doing wrong???

[CNY rider]

[QUOTE=RPS]

Yep! Bikes keep getting better (or more expensive), riders keep getting slower. It's funny that the marketing emphasis is on racers, yet they make it so clear that their target market is anything but.

Di2 is turning into a market failure to this point because the testing is all being done by racers - everyone knows they ride the hardest and put the most demands on their bikes (this everyone person isn't always right...). But few racers are willing to shell out that kind of money for a shifting system. So you have the sponsored riders with Di2, you have lots of racers who would like it, but it's out of their price range, and you have lots of people with plenty of cash, but they all want triples and wider range gearing.
I still haven't figured out what's wrong with cable operated shifting systems, or what's so wrong with the 44T inner chainring - what am I doing wrong???


Ti I always enjoy reading your posts even though about half the time I think you are totally full of *****.

This is so on target it makes up for any of the airballs from the past. Dead on right.

[beungood]

Pics Please! Don't torture us like that...

Ok here they are..oooops says they are too large, can anyone help?

[beungood]

[QUOTE=William]Baaah, on a triple you should be running a 53/52/48. Any thing else and you should.....you should be wearing Gold Rapha shorts. ;)




Those gold shorts just may match the gold/yellow Serotta panels on my Sled..
I'm just wondering if I can pull it off...

[beungood]

I’m a mechanical engineer and won’t show you the math, but will ask you to read between the lines. If you go back to the original post, there is no mention of what cassette he was previously using with the 39T. Additionally, he states that he “hauled up most of it in the 42 and it seemed a lot easier for some reason”. But unless you think he did the rest in the big ring, it follows that he used the 30T granny ring or whatever he used on the triple, right? So how much can we actually determine beyond pure speculation? If it was that much easier why did he not make the entire climb on the 42T? :confused: Maybe he was using a triple before with a 39T middle ring. Who knows -- I have no idea.

Without data – lots more data – there is very little to apply engineering to. We can discuss engineering principles as Dave did, but beyond that it’s pointless to compare at this time.

The cassette size is the same 12/25 the crankset is different though i'm on 175's versus the 172.5 if this makes any difference. I did feel that the 42 felt like the "sweet spot" another poster mentioned and also my knees didnt hurt at all Q wise...

One of the reasons I decided to give it a try was the advice Ti gave about spinning early on in the season. Not having a fixie with a 42 I tried to follow closely what he said only using the 39 best I could and keeping it near the middle of the cog and spinning for the first few months in the spring and concentrating on pedalling. I thought the 42 Might let me use the advice a little better versus spinning out on the 39...

[Dave]

If you look at a gear-inch chart, you'll find that all the ratios with a 42 and any given cog are about the same as a 39 with the next smaller cog. All the 39 does is extend the gearing range.

IMO, the 39T became most popular with advent of indexed shifting and brake/shift levers that could accurately shift 2-3 cogs after switching between the chainrings. Before that, using a 42 tooth limited the shifting needs to only 1-2 cogs, that wasn't too difficult with friction shifting. Not many people complain about getting another low gear with the same cassette.

[RPS]

If you look at a gear-inch chart, you'll find that all the ratios with a 42 and any given cog are about the same as a 39 with the next smaller cog. All the 39 does is extend the gearing range.
For the last couple of years I’ve resisted buying a new Shimano triple because they now use 39T instead of 42T middle rings and I was convinced I’d miss having the 42T I’ve had for decades. My logic was that with a 42T and an 11-21 cassette the middle ring/cog gear (42/15) gives me 20 MPH at 90 RPM – perfect for me to ride flats or rolling hills. And what’s there not to like; I spend over 90 percent of the time in the middle of the cassette between the 13- and 17-tooth cogs with 1-tooth jumps and with excellent chainlines.

However, times do change. Not only does Shimano not offer the 42 middle ring, I’ve also been riding solo a lot more, so my average speed is down about 2 MPH or so compared to riding with a small group; maybe more when comparing to a larger group. Then I thought, if I’m riding about 10 percent slower, how big a deal would it be to have a +/- 10 percent smaller middle chainring? :rolleyes:

I’m now willing to try a 52-39-30 (or 50-39-30) triple crankset with an 11-23 cassette on my next bike knowing that the middle gear will match my average speed close enough. I’m confident I’ll get used to it – although I expect that with an available 39/23 I’ll hardly ever use the granny ring.

[dbrower]

When I started riding seriously again, after decade-plus distraction, my old steel bike had a 50/40/28 touring triple, and I needed every bit of gearing help it offered, hardly ever using the highest combo.

In the 5 years since, I've used 53/39, 50/34, and 53/39/30 cranks, and 11-25, 11-23, 11-27 and 11-34 cassettes as I've improved fitness to tolerable levels, and I have PowerTap data from all of the combinations to know what, in fact, works best. I freely switch cassettes for the ride. This afternoon I tied a PR for watts up a 10 minute climb, using the 30 tooth front and the 32 tooth gear on the 11-34 at 90rpm. Last week I hit a wattage PR for 20:00 time trial at 83 rpm using mostly the 53x14 on the 11-25, better to have closer ratios with small or no hills. I don't think I'd like to go up Sierra Rd in San Jose without the 30x34, which still leaves me turning < 60 rpm for big stretches. The main time I spend in the middle ring is when I'm trying to force myself to work high cadence in the 39/12 or 39/13, rather than use the 53 and just stomp.

I can't see the difference between a 39 and 42 being worth much, really, compared to decent quality training time. All things considered, worrying about the 39/42 difference seems more like an ego thing than something of practical significance. It's the mid range, where there's likely to be plenty of overlap, so why get worked up about it?

I would have to wonder how well a 53/42/30 is going to shift between the 42 and the 30 even with pins and ramps. If you need a triple -- and a lot of people do, even if they won't admit it -- there's nothing wrong with the 39. For people who can't put out 300w for 20:00, a compact doesn't really do the job if there are any hills.

-dB

[RPS]

I can't see the difference between a 39 and 42 being worth much, really, compared to decent quality training time. All things considered, worrying about the 39/42 difference seems more like an ego thing than something of practical significance. It's the mid range, where there's likely to be plenty of overlap, so why get worked up about it?
I can’t speak for others, but can’t see how ego would have much to do with it since most people don’t notice whether one is riding a 39 or 42, particularly in the middle of a triple. There may be an ego factor against using a compact or triple, or even a cassette with a cog the size of a chainring, but whether one has a 39 or 42 in the middle of a triple probably only matters to the person using it.

In the past I’ve disliked 39T small or middle rings simply because I live in a very flat area and typical group rides seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time in the 20 to 25 MPH range. For that speed range the 39T was inadequate for me without crossing the chain a lot, so I had to spend most of the time in the big ring (at that point I might as well have a compact or a single chainring).

The only reason for me to have a triple is that a few times a year I go to the Texas Hill Country (or sometimes a place like the Sierras in California) to enjoy hills and mountains. And triples allow me to take my bikes from flat to 20%-grade areas without having to make changes (beyond maybe a wheel change with a different cassette). With a 42 I felt I had a perfect combination for flats and the 30T allows me to climb 20 percent grades without having to use an MTB cassette. Obviously I can ride a 39 or just about anything without any problems – it’s not “that” important. It’s not being worked up about it, it’s mostly about optimizing based on personal needs and likes.

I view having a triple as a city dweller having a 4-wheel-drive vehicle – gets used less than 1% of the time but when you really need it it’s nice to have. It also gives you flexibility to wonder into areas you wouldn’t otherwise.